This federal lawsuit’s chronology, and Hoda Muthana’s support of terrorism, are provided courtesy of the Geller Report.

USA’s Motion to Dismiss / Partial Summary Judgment

“The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers citizenship on persons ‘born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). The Supreme Court has long held that the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ excludes from the coverage of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause children born in the United States to foreign ministers or diplomatic officers representing foreign nations.” Motion, p. 17.

Hoda Muthana “is not and never was a U.S. citizen. Muthana’s parents enjoyed diplomatic-agent-level immunity at that time of her birth, meaning that she was born not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus could not and did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. And because A.M.’s only claim to citizenship rests on his mother (Muthana) being a U.S. citizen, the claims related to A.M. must also be dismissed.” Motion, p. 16.

“Plaintiff is incorrect that the Department of State revoked Muthana’s citizenship when it revoked her passport on January 15, 2016. The Department of State did not ‘revoke’ Muthana’s citizenship. Rather, the Department revoked her passport and explained that it had been issued in error because Muthana had never been a U.S. citizen.” Motion, p. 31.

“Plaintiff cites no authority – and Defendants have found none – that supports Plaintiff’s assertion that the United States must facilitate the return of its citizens. There is no unqualified right to government assistance for a U.S. citizen to return to the United States.” Motion, p. 37.

Muthana’s Response:

“What matters here is not that the Department of State revoked Ms. Muthana’s United States passport in 2016; what matters is that the Department of State issued her one in the first place.” Response, p. 14.

“Defendants recognize the legal import of passports in their Motion: passports ‘provide proof of one’s status as a citizen.’ Multiple courts as well as Congress recognize that a United States passport serves as proof of recognition as a United States citizen.” Response, p. 15.

“This Circuit has in fact specifically clarified that the government cannot make an “end run” around the requirement of obtaining a judicial ruling, supported by clear and convincing evidence, in order to revoke citizenship.” Response, p. 17.

“As there has been no judicial order to the contrary …, the citizenship evidenced by Ms. Muthana’s previous passports remains in existence. Ms. Muthana is, therefore, entitled to a declaratory action from this Court that she remains a United States citizen.” Response, p. 18.

USA’s Reply

“Plaintiff argues that issuance of a passport to Muthana conclusively established that she is a U.S. citizen or conferred U.S. citizenship on her. That is not what issuance of a passport does. An unexpired U.S. passport may be proof of U.S. citizenship, but passports ‘do not confer citizenship; rather they merely provide proof of one’s status as a citizen.’ Thus, under federal law, the cancellation ‘of any document purporting to show the citizenship status of the person to whom it was issued’ – such as a passport – ‘shall affect only the document and not the citizenship status of the person in whose name the document was issued.’ So if someone was issued a passport but was not a citizen, the issuance of a passport does not make that person a citizen … The Department of State revoked Muthana’s passport and explained that it had been issued in error because Muthana had never been a U.S. citizen.” Reply, p. 15; omitted citations.

The United States, a sovereign nation, has authority to establish eligibility for immigrants. President Trump has tried to reduce the number of refugees, and he supports the proposed RAISE Act. An applicant must understand and swear to uphold the United States’ Constitution including the Bill of Rights; accept individual liberties; and respectfully disagree without violence on issues such as politics and religion. Refuse to accept these principles, then the government must reject an application for citizenship, visa, or refugee status.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…” Memo, p. 7.

This is a power play between the Courts, Congress and the U.S. President, whose first priority is security of citizens. The government’s policy should be to deny citizenship to, or a right of return by, anyone who provides material support to a terrorist organization.